Call or no call?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Goldfish

Hi Nevadaref
I agree totally with your comments re late challenges but timing is critical here. If the player has got his shot away and the timing of the contact is a judgment opinion to be made by the ref on the day. If it merited a caution so be it but if the the attacker was simply tripped by contact after the event then that IMO advantage has been played and the attacker cannot get two attempts. If it was heavy contact then caution followed by a DFK or penalty but this reads to me like minimal contact after the event

What advantage are you allowing to the attacking team in this case?
Do you believe that a ball which has no chance of entering the goal is better for the offended team than a PK?

Please remember that the attacking team has done nothing wrong here and the defending team has committed a foul. The only way that this foul should not be penalized is if the attacking team would actually benefit from the referee not stopping play for it. That is what applying advantage means. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

How hard the contact is or whether the offender is deserving of a card are not relevant considerations in determining to award the PK. The referee need only determine that the contact was not trifling and was indeed a foul. Regarding that the OP wrote that the defender "tripped the forward flat on his face." That sounds like a clear foul to me.

[Goldfish]

Hi Nevadaref
In the instance cited the player got the shot off without any foul from the defender. No foul committed and that's part of normal play. After the shot the defender makes contact in way described either clumsily or through momentum. If the shot went into the goal what would the ref have done. Brought it back for a FK??. I don't think so. This is a decision the ref has to make based on the circumstances presented. The challenge as described had no impact on the shot and as it was not malicious or deserving of a card then play on. Happens all the time, player in on goal shoots and is then 'fouled' after the event. Many times the forward does not even realise he's been fouled. In a Man Utd CL game recently Rooney was through on goal, lobs the keeper, keeper catches/fouls him after the lob and the ball goes narrowly over the bar. No way was it a penalty and the ref restarted with a GK even though the keeper made foul contact with Rooney after the lob. As I said previously timing is everything on this but as described in the OP IMO correct decision was made
While not totally relevant this is what the FA has to say in the UK on advantage and I quote

In the event, however, of the fouled player being allowed the advantage then wasting it as a result of a subsequent error (or a colleague who receives the ball immediately from the advantage loses it, or shoots wide of goal, etc) then play should not be halted to penalise the original offence.

[ref47]

a late foul on the attacker is still a foul. was this a foul or did the attacker fall over a player who did nothing wrong? if the defender tried to clear the ball and missed, then the attacker tripped over the attacker's leg, that is a foul and, if in the pa, a pk. matters not that he got off a shot and it eventually missed the goal or wasd saved by the keeper.

consider this. same play but the defender does not trip the attacker. instead he hits the attacker with a punch just after the shot is taken. what do you call? no foul? i don't think so.

the original post needs a decision whether the defender committed a foul or not. if a foul, then a pk. if no foul, just incidental contact, then no call.

[Goldfish]

Hi Ref47
Misconduct is a totally different matter and no one is suggesting that it should not be dealt with. Nor indeed should SFP not be dealt with. I am off the opinion that JerBear made the correct call from the description in the OP.